My roll as you're judge is to be a tabula rasa, in other words, a "blank slate" so that all preconceived notions and biases are discarded pre-round. In general, I'll vote for whoever is most persuasive.

LD/PF/BQ

- Prefer trad over progressive arguments, but if you've got a good case feel free to run anything

- I'm not a line-by-line judge but please signpost so I can track your args

- Unless it's a K, or you have very different values, please don't waste time on the framework as most are similar and can be incorporated into each other

- I dislike spreading, but if you must please email me your case and slow down on important points that would you like to emphasize.

- Impacts are important, but not if your links are weak. If you want to run a global extinction impact please use strong evidence and analysis to convince me why such a situation is likely enough for me to vote on it.

- Evidence is important, but please include plenty of analysis. I will accept evidence as true unless challenged and determine the winner upon who analyzes all the presented evidence (including that of your opponent) in the manner most favorable to their case.

Bottom Line: At the end of the day, I'm going to vote for whoever uses the best persuasion skills to convince me of their case. My name is Ethan and I look forward to judging your round.

I debated policy all through high school. I'm currently one of the coaches for Cedar Valley HS. I don't have a problem with speed.

I am in my second year of Judging Debate. My son started last year, and am so inspired with any student who is willing to compete in debate. It takes skill, preparation and ample amount of courage. I volunteer because I want to learn more about debate, and when I see a quality debate it is fun and engaging. I consider myself a naturally neutral individual. I will not favor a side because its what I believe, but will favor a side because you convince me to.

Speed:

I understand there is a lot to cover in small amount of time. This said, I prefer a clear concise style of speech. I believe this allows for a more persuasive and all around better style of debating. The faster you speak the more clear and concise you need to be. If i can’t track your argument because your speaking to fast then you didn’t make the argument.

Evidence:

I want to hear evidence that links well to argument. Does the evidence truly support your stance. Is the reference relevant to time period. I will buy the evidence if its clear, all conditions met, and it makes sense, and it actually proves a point. I will refer to reference if I feel a need to, but that means it wasn’t clear to begin with. I also like to hear multiple references to validate your argument.

I did debate in high school and have tried just about everything though I mainly stuck to extemps, big questions and interps.

Speech: I want someone who can keep me engaged the whole time I am judging but also someone who has a clear knowledge of their subject. Organization is a big one for me so keep that in mind. In extemp a framework is preferable and at least 3 sources need to be used.

Debates: I like a clean cut round, if you spread I will not flow, my RFD's often come down to who has the most contentions standing rather than who had the better debate, however that is still a factor. Voters are huge for me, be confident in that speech.

Under personal review please ask before round for paradigm.

Congress Paradigm:

Debate Paradigm:

Speech Paradigm:

Hello, debaters! I’m so glad to be here with you. I participated in speech and debate in high school and competed in LD debate and a little bit of CX. But, that was a while ago. I love clear, logical arguments backed up by credible sources as well as good questioning for better understanding of your competitors. I will flow the rounds, but I know I am not as fast as you would like me to be! I will do my best. Good luck!

Don't speak too fast or I won't be able to digest what you are saying.

Speak in a firm confident voice, even if you are not confident.

For LD, Policy, and PF I am a flow based judge. I can comprehend medium-high spreading and have no issues with kritik, counterplans, etc. If you have any questions about my Paradigm feel free to ask me.

DEBATE GENERAL: I am not a fan of spreading/spewing; if I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based upon the arguments. Fast is fine as long as enunciation is clear. If it gets to the point where I cannot flow, I will judge you based upon presentation alone. During cross, I want to know that you can answer the question, not only rely upon cards. I prefer a civil debate; it makes my job more difficult if I have to discern between what you're saying and how it's presented.

CON: I expect a debate. Unless it's the first aff/neg speeches, I do not expect canned speeches. I am not a fan of voting blocks to keep people low on priority because I think it's important to see how everyone is doing, not just the select few who are better at networking. That being said, if the debate is not being furthered because there are no new arguments or clash and the same speeches are given over and over again, I welcome a motion to PQ to move the session along. I expect the Chair to know the basics, like Robert's Rules, as well as the Orders of the Day, and keep everything running smoothly.

PF/LD: I am looking for evidence but I also want to know that you understand your cases. In LD, if you are going to run a CP, make sure all of the components are there. While a criterion is not required, I do prefer that you have one. In PF, if there is a framework, I expect it to be upheld.

CX: While the biggest impact is important, it should be a realistic one.

I am a sophomore at the U of U. I did debate for four years at Summit Academy HS. I started out with PF and ended with LD so I am well versed in most debate styles. Don't be afraid to run what you want. I don't flow cross so if something comes up make sure to bring it up in your next speech. If you do spread add me to your email chain @omarfkhan14@gmail.com.

(Updated For The Stanford Debate Tournament)

First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.

If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.

tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space. I don't care how well you prove your point that women's suffrage was not utilitarian (I wish I hadn't been in that round) I'm not going to buy it. If you feel your opponent is violating this please email me.

Speed: Yeah, speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If its a problem I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.

Kritik: I read a modified form of the Afro Pessimism K for 2 years on both the aff and neg until I started reading poetry based cases. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments and the K have pre-fiat impacts you should work to create a priority between them. You probably wont like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)

On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.

Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.

I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to truth testing over comparative worlds.

Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.

Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.

If all debaters ask me then I will disclose the round

If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.

I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after

Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

I'm quite simple in terms of judging. I have an extensive background in Lincoln-Douglas debate, and from my experience, what frustrated me the most was the debaters that would rely more on their knowledge and exploitation of the rules than they would actual, well-founded arguments.

What this means is that I look for people who make good points, and argue their side well. Don't abuse the rules of speech/debate to technically gain more points, I will see right through that. Make good points, and use your ability, I believe in you!

Additionally, I prefer it if debaters do not pander to me directly, instead relying on universally good points.

I've competed in Public Forum all four years of high school as well as some speech events and Policy. As for particular experience I've qualified nationally in Public Forum so I have my fair share of experience in that event. I am aware of all terminology/jargon so feel free to refer to things however you may like I'll understand it. I don't think I need to mention anything else but if you'd like more specifics feel free to ask before round starts.

I don't have any specific things I like to see in the round besides signposting or crystallizing down the flow since it makes rebuttals in general a lot easier to flow. I'm honestly fine with y'all running Ks but I'd advise against it as some judges will have difficulty wrapping their heads around a metatheoretical argument that isn't a "typical" case centered around the topic. Lastly, I do not consider cross-ex when deciding on winner because of how inconsistent that can be.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask before round starts, thanks.

Decorum is paramount!

Please remember this if nothing else. I like to see good flow and obvious preparation with your case, topic, policy or presentation. In impromptu and extemporaneous I want to see your personality and natural instincts on display. I really prefer you take your time and use the grace period after to wrap up your sentence or thoughts so I fully understand and get your message as intended and not be left to assume.  I want to see good compete out of opponents and respectfully aggressive approach. Again decorum is huge with me. Being actively engaged in the entirety of every round is something I look for. You can always be learning from those around you.  And lastly have fun! I am grateful for each of you and for all of your hard work.

I am a high school English teacher and know how to write effective essays and speeches. I do not, however, have formal debate training. As a high school English teacher, I value the writing of the speech itself. As a debater, you should go into each round assuming that I know nothing about the topic at hand. Give definitions, explain concepts, speak clearly and explicitly. You can’t convince me to choose your side if I don’t understand your side. Please teach me before you convince me. If you choose to speak quickly, be warned that you need to still speak clearly. If I cannot hear you I cannot judge you.

I typically choose debate winners based on the success of their claims, including those made in crossfire, as they are presented with rhetorical strength, including effectiveness of logos, ethos, and pathos.

I don't care how fast you speak, traditional and progressive are both fine, just make it make sense, that's all.